fatter/smoother, mark IV or IIC+

[fatbagg]

I see so many threads abut how the IIC+ is just the thing to have...

Ive played the mark IV for so many years, then the V, and RIGHT back to the IV. Im curious about a IIC+ now. For the lead tone, does the IIC+ out-tone the IV? I like high gain, smooth fat (yet agressive in a playing style kinda way, not tonal way). I LOVE the big midrange. I play a lot of Eric Johnson, andy timmons, bonamassa, petrucci, yada yada. Which to get, my mark IV back, or the IIC+?

I always hear about the metal, or metallica sound in the IIC+, but aside from that, how does the tonality of the lead channel compare with the mark IV?

 

[gts]

I see so many threads abut how the IIC+ is just the thing to have...

Ive played the mark IV for so many years, then the V, and RIGHT back to the IV. Im curious about a IIC+ now. For the lead tone, does the IIC+ out-tone the IV? I like high gain, smooth fat (yet agressive in a playing style kinda way, not tonal way). I LOVE the big midrange. I play a lot of Eric Johnson, andy timmons, bonamassa, petrucci, yada yada. Which to get, my mark IV back, or the IIC+?

I always hear about the metal, or metallica sound in the IIC+, but aside from that, how does the tonality of the lead channel compare with the mark IV?

Sold my MkIV two months after getting it. That was 5+ years back.

IMHO the C+ is Warmer, smoother, fatter, and
Much more responsive to ones playing dynamics.
But they (C+'s) are not for everyone.

Mk IV has more "tweak-ability" due to separate controls for Lead/ Rhythm channels.
I think the 'lower midrange' is accentuated in all Mark series maps and is kind of a signature to the Mark Series in general.

 

[JOEY B.]

I always hear about the metal, or metallica sound in the IIC+, but aside from that, how does the tonality of the lead channel compare with the mark IV?

The Mark IV is going to be a bit more smooth in the lead channel than the IIC+, (metallica, or otherwise). The Mark IIC+ will show all your weakness as a player, the EVM-12L only makes it more apparent. :shock:

 

[fatbagg]

I just got two totally different answers...

Im trying to sell my two rock and either buy a IV and pocket cash, or get a IIc+, but can't seem ti get this answered, haha...

 

[JOEY B.]

I just got two totally different answers...

Im trying to sell my two rock and either buy a IV and pocket cash, or get a IIc+, but can't seem ti get this answered, haha...

The highs are a bit more rounded on the Mark IV, with similar settings. The main difference to me is the way the amp responds to my playing(pick attack).

 

[gts]

I just got two totally different answers...

Im trying to sell my two rock and either buy a IV and pocket cash, or get a IIc+, but can't seem ti get this answered, haha...

The highs are a bit more rounded on the Mark IV, with similar settings. The main difference to me is the way the amp responds to my playing(pick attack).

JB is that why you say 'more smooth' on the lead channel for the IV? Meaning smoother if using similar settings?
I felt the C+was smoother but then again maybe it's the way I have dialed it in.

Pretty sure mine was a IVa vs IVb. Maybe the a's are less smooth than the b's?

fatbagg where u located? Maybe someone on the board that has a C+ lives nearby and you can try it out.

 

[fatbagg]

I am in Savannah, Georgia.

It seems (from what I gather) that the amps are similar, maybe the IIc+, having far less circuitry is maybe more natural, or dynamic? Or am I way off?